How did the MA Republican Party die?

Submitted by admin on November 16, 2006 - 11:43am.

The Wave Maker has a very interesting post today about how the MA Republican Party can resucitate itself. Embedded within is an eye-opening perspective on the history of the party since Reagan's victory in 1980 or so.

I think it's a fine post, but I think Wave Maker places far too much importance on the personal appeal of a candidate, far too little on the candidate's organization, and less still on the candidate's ideology and platform. To hear him tell it, Deval Patrick won because he has a nice smile and can use words properly, not because he had an incredible grassroots following which was inspired by his experience and his ideas.

I can understand WM's point of view: his most relevant experience is running for state representative in the mid-80's. Indeed, at the local level, personality and charm can carry you a very, very long way. However, a lot has changed in 20 years. More and more legislative districts are filling up with transient 20-somethings who are motivated to vote, and have a keen sense of their ideology, certainly as it pertains to social issues, and their stand on a few key national issues that have local echoes, like health care and education. Their transience makes a personal connection with the candidate himself very unlikely, and their ideology and knowledge of social and national issues makes them more likely to vote based on a candidate's ideology and platform. Those twin factors are, I think, drastically changing the way state legislative races are run.

Moreover, gubernatorial politics and state rep politics are two totally different ballgames. State rep races are fought with less money, less media attention, and less volunteer time than gubernatorial races. No doubt Wave Maker knows that, but the effects are impossible to ignore. However little personality matters in state rep races, I would wager that it matters much less in the gubernatorial.

At any rate, I guess we'll get a chance to test out his hypothesis in the 2010 Patrick-Baker race.

admin's blog | add new comment
( categories: Democratic Party )
Adapting to the Electorate
Submitted by Robert Winters on November 20, 2006 - 12:49am.

Interesting enough take on why the Republican Party has all but vanished in Massachusetts. Who is "Wave Maker", by the way? I have a hard time respecting the positions of a person who doesn't provide his name.

Personally, I think the demise of the Republican Party can be better explained by their refusal to pay attention to the electorate. Massachusetts is, by all accounts, somewhat more "liberal" than the rest of the USA. Both major political parties must adapt to the electorate or die. The Democrats have staked out their position left of center while the Republicans continue to pretend this is Kansas.

The reason the two-party system remains the standard in most places in the USA is that the parties continually adapt to the electorate and by doing so generally each command close to 50% of the vote. This is why presidential elections are usually close. It's also why the U.S. House and Senate have similar numbers of Republicans and Democrats. In Massachusetts, the Republicans seem to be guided more by ideology that practical politics. As a result, like the dinosaurs, they are heading toward extinction.

In Cambridge elections for 60 years there were two unofficial "parties" - the CCA and the Independents. They each commanded close to 50% of the electorate because as the electorate changed, the "parties" changed. For brief periods of time, one would command a clear majority, but the pendulum would always swing back - in part due to the electorate drawing back, but also because the political players would adapt to the changing electorate.

Once upon a time, the Republican Party in Massachusetts was a substantial force. It defined itself by themes like "good government", controlling the growth of taxes, and "anti-patronage" efforts while the Democrats perfected the practice of political patronage. The Republicans offered an attractive alternative and we had competitive elections. Bill Weld successfully played to this kind of Republican and won. Nowadays, the only way a Republican can win in Massachusetts is by becoming a Democrat. Meanwhile in New York, a liberal Republican can actually run as a Republican and win. New York has a long history of liberal Republicans. Such beings used to exist as a Massachusetts species as well.

The Republican Party in Massachusetts now seems to pay little attention to the electorate - in statewide elections and in local races. If they paid attention, they would not only permit, but encourage liberal Republicans and pro-choice Republicans to run as candidates and to help define the party. They would rediscover themes that resonate with half the voters or more - things like honesty in government and providing an alternative to the entrenched (mainly Democratic) interests on Beacon Hill. They could advocate for many things that voters seem to want but which Beacon Hill never seems to deliver.

Healey's people chose to run their candidate according to the Cheney-Rove playbook. I don't think that sells here in Massachusetts. Lower taxes does sell and Patrick figured this out. Whether truthful or not (I suspect not), he promised to cap local property taxes - a typical Republican sales pitch. Apparently, at least this one Democrat managed to adapt to the electorate, just like Bill Clinton did - and many of those unenrolled voters shifted to the other side for the first time in 16 years. It didn't hurt that Patrick was charming guy, just like Bill Weld was in his own preppy little way.

reply